I stated this in another thread and it's relevant here. And it's exactly why threads like this and so many others completely miss the mark in terms of "attacking" Trump in any sort of way that isn't just a circlejerk amongst those who already dislike the man
Indeed, I think the reason why continual attempts to derail Trump by going "Look at these OUTRAGEOUS statements he makes!" is because it completely misses the point of part of his appeal. Part of his appeal, for his two main group of voters, is the fact he talks in very plain, straight forward, from the hip language instead of the carefully constructed and nuanced talk of politicians. And because of that, those that come to support him...and I imagine, many of those who simply aren't massively antagonistic to him even if they don't like him...are FAR less apt to be upset by those statements even if they don't agree with it or if they agree it sounded bad. Why? Because they're more apt to take the intention behind them than the literal words because they recognize that when you speak plainly and off the cuff, it's easier to say something that may not sound exactly right. That when you're not focus grouping and painstakingly putting together talking points, the margin of error to say something in a confusing way, in a tactless way, or in a inaccurate way is greater. So there's an ingrained extra level of "forgiveness" in vocal gaffes by him compared to other politicians.
But like so many things with Trump, the media has been EXTREMELY slow to catch onto trends and onto ways in which this election cycle, especially with him, does not conform to norms. So they continue to harp on things in the same fashion as they always do, and then become flabbergasted when it doesn't have the same effect as it previously would've.
Too often people take Trumps words and his statements, and even his follow up, and try to approach them either using typical political convention OR by simply using their bias to expect and only except the absolute worst case scenario.
Trump is not going to say he didn't mean exactly what he said, because he absolutely meant it. To those that can't stand the man, that means he LITERALLY felt that way. But that's not the only way to read "I meant exactly what I said". Another way to read that is that he "meant" it in a sarcastic/figurative sense, and so if you're asking him to clarify he's not going to do so, because to him there's nothing to clarify...he meant what he said, as he said it, and as HE understood HIMSELF to mean.
One of Trumps big things is not apologizing or correcting himself if he doesn't feel like what he did or meant wasn't worthy of apologizing or correcting himself. What that means is he's not going to apologize or correct himself based on what
OTHER PEOPLE interpret or think or feel he said.
You know how some people will go "My apologies if I offended you, it wasn't my intent". Trump, by his general thought process, isn't going to do that, because if his intent wasn't to offend then he has no reason to apologize, because any offend taken was in error on the part of the person being offended. "It's a you problem" he'd probably say.
Same goes here. Hugh wanted to try to get him to go into more nuance, to explain specifically what he meant. Trump was having none of it. He said something, he knew what he meant by it, he liked the way it sounded, and he was going to stick with that rather than going into nuance. Which opens it up for legit criticism, but undoubtedly, but doesn't preclude it from being stated in a way other than the 100% most literalistic fashion possible.
